GoSlash27

Tylerd, I'm looking forward to it. Lots of knowledgeable and helpful people in the KSP spaceplane community, so you'll have plenty of assistance when you need it. Best, -Slashy

"Moar boosters" <> more DV except where you are staging unless you're underpowered to begin with. DV is all about how much propellant mass you expend, what velocity your engine(s) accelerates it to, and how much mass you are accelerating. Adding engines increases mass that is not propellant, and so reduces DV. Adding tanks to feed those engines will get you close to the original figure, but you'll lose some efficiency due to increased drag. It's only when you stage (dropping dead weight as you go) that you will begin to see increases in DV. Best, -Slashy

Okay, that's a start. Low passenger count spaceplanes can be done very economically. We really need to pin down exactly how much orbital DV you'll be needing. Somewhere between LKO and the Mun is a pretty vague mission requirement. I always design my stuff for a LKO mission (75x75) and 150 m/sec reserve. We also need to sort out which approach we're after. Minimum buy- in, low mission cost, high payload fraction, all- fuel, green, low tech... Each approach is different and requires a different recipe/ profile. A couple different approaches that I've used: Low tech Low operating cost *Edit* Reviewing "experimental aerospace", there's nothing there you need for this job. It's pretty open- ended. Best, -Slashy

5thHorseman, Comments like this remind me of how many different ways to enjoy this game When you posted this, I actually scratched my head and puzzled over it because this is the part I enjoy *most* ! I get more enjoyment out of the engineering part of the mission than the execution itself, but others love to fly the rockets and still others love to watch the world burn. What an awesome game! Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - RuBisCo, For clarification, suppose I wanted to conduct a LKO rendezvous mission instead of an all-up single launch. Would that be legal? Multiple launches would increase the difficulty, since all of them have to work acceptably the first time or the mission fails. If that's not acceptable, that's cool. A single launch would reduce the likelihood of a mistake ruining the mission. Thanks, -Slashy

Tylerd, There are lots of threads out there dealing with 1.04 SSTO spaceplanes. Check the "pro SSTO" and "K prize" threads for recipes. What, exactly, do you want to accomplish with your SSTO? Best, -Slashy

I don't argue much about SSTO definitions. Generally (not always) I am able to deduce the author's intention simply by context. For me personally... I have a very strictly defined set of criteria for when and why I use SSTO spaceplanes vs. when I don't. From a practical point of view the SSTO spaceplane only makes sense where 1) minimum operating cost and maximum safety are desired 2) the trip is strictly between KSC and LKO 3) Whatever is being transported can be transferred through a docking port and 4) I plan on using it routinely For everything else, I opt for different launch systems. Best, -Slashy

Nich, Love the badges! I have no suggestions for the Eeloo multiplier. It'd have to be a huge amount, since I haven't seen anyone get an SSTO to Eeloo yet. Best, -Slashy

Absolutely! I use staged rockets for assemblies and SSTO spaceplanes for crew and supplies. Best, -Slashy

I read this in my "Grandpa Simpson" voice Best, -Slashy

Guys, You don't have to overengineer it. Just do the math on the side. Work the mission backwards. design each stage for the required payload/ twr/ DV. Treat subsequent stages as payload for preceding stages. Rinse and repeat until you've worked your way back to the pad. Here's how the math works: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/121151-Help-with-calculating-delta-v-and-twr?p=2053809&viewfull=1#post2053809 Who needs KER? Best, -Slashy

Yeah, way too high a wing loading. Best, -Slashy

All of the folks in this image have proven their proficiency at operating in stock career with no facility upgrades. Cavemen thrive on austerity! Best, -Slashy

I always shoot my deadstick landings for 5° angle of attack rather than a set speed. Getting set in the glide to assure you'll get there with decent speed means a steeper descent path. If you're going long, then s-turn to bleed off energy, but whatever you do don't allow yourself to go short. It's like carpentry; you can always cut excess wood off, but you can't get it back on again... You should drop yourself into the final with some excess speed (but not 275 m/sec!). Just flare just before touchdown and ride the 5° AoA. The speed will bleed off and drop you into a nice gentle landing. As for the markers, I personally use marker drones, but flags can work just as well. I set them at 5km, 10km, and 20 km west of the runway. Use the latitude in the map screen to get the lineup and something parked on the runway to get the distance. This will give you reference points for lineup that are so clear you can see them from orbit. As a bonus, you can check your altitude as you pass over them as checkpoints during your descent. Best, -Slashy

quazarrgames, Low drag is certainly part of it, but it's not "everything" in SSTO spaceplanes. Equally (or more) important considerations: *use the proper proportions. No more or less than necessary of any one part of the combination of parts required to make a functional spaceplane. Everything affects everything else, so don't deviate from the recipe. *Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency! There's no room on a spaceplane for bloat. Ruthlessly eliminate everything that isn't absolutely necessary. Efficiency feeds on itself. So does inefficiency. * You gotta fly a precise profile or it ain't makin' orbit. Learn what your spaceplane likes and fly it that way. Good luck! -Slashy

Ahh. That's true, but it's something that doesn't really need tested. You either have enough intake to feed the engine where it still produces thrust or you don't. In that sense, there is no improvement to be had in intake performance. You can gauge that by the intake area in the .cfg. Best, -Slashy

Well, that kills my original concept ( which wasn't working right anyway ) Too late to try something tonight, so I'll put it off. Best, -Slashy

Tassyr, My 1.02 spaceplane stuff is still in the ballpark. You will have to juggle the fuel/ oxidizer proportions a bit. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118728-Slashy-s-1-02-Spaceplane-recipe A lot of new advances as we're getting a handle on 1.04 aero, so apologies; I haven't done a 1.04 recipe yet. *edit* forgot: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/129374-Pro-SSTO-builder-pilot-Challenge This is where I'm at now for 1.04. Reverse- engineering the designs submitted for this challenge (and flying the profiles correctly) will get you where you want to be. Best, -Slashy

I just stuck one out on opposite sides of an SRB with RCS tanks to balance the weight. Whichever side it veers to is draggier. Best, -Slashy

Sharpy, I like to keep a couple "hands" around. Simple little RCS tugs with different sized docking ports on each end. They allow me to handle and manipulate sections around the station. Also, don't forget the RCS storage tanks! Best, -Slashy

Thanks, I just set up a flying balance beam. The shock cone is definitely the least-draggy. Best, -Slashy

You know... people keep telling me this, but I ain't so sure. Has anybody done a test to confirm this? Best, -Slashy

Interesting! Doing a lot of work on my space station this morning, so it'll be a while before I can get in on this. Least amount of fuel for 1 kerbal. Hmm...

I verified it on my install (no mods). I also confirmed that it produces no thrust when airborne. Weird... Best, -Slashy

You might also have a problem with flimsy structures and too much authority in the reaction wheels. That has a habit of shaking airplanes to death. Also there's a known bug where planes will have a "collision" with buildings on KSC grounds even when they're nowhere near them, but this will show up in the mission report (wing section collided with spaceplane hangar for example). Best, -Slashy

This isn't what the OP was looking for and that's already been provided, but here's a similar concept that provides some food for thought: http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KerbiLab/Kerbilab1 http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KerbiLab/Kerbilab4 The concept was to collect science from as many biomes as possible in a single trip and return it to KSC. I assembled and fueled it on the ramp because reasons. Best, -Slashy